29 USCS § 141
UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE
Copyright 2000, LEXIS Law Publishing, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
Copyright 2000, LEXIS Law Publishing, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
*** CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 106-272, APPROVED 9/22/00 ***
*** WITH THE EXCEPTION OF P.L. 106-271 ***
*** WITH THE EXCEPTION OF P.L. 106-271 ***
TITLE 29. LABOR
CHAPTER 7. LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
GO
TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
CHAPTER 7. LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
GO
TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION 29 USCS § 141 (2000)
§ 141. Short title; Congressional declaration of purpose and policy
(a) This Act may be cited as the "Labor Management Relations Act, 1947."
(b) Industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of commerce and with the full production of articles and commodities for commerce, can be avoided or substantially minimized if employers, employees, and labor organizations each recognize under law one another's legitimate rights in their relations with each other, and above all recognize under law that neither party has any right in its relations with any other to engage in acts or practices which jeopardize the public health, safety, or interest.
It is the purpose and policy of this Act, in order to promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.
HISTORY:
(June 23, 1947, ch 120, § 1, 61 Stat. 136.)
HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES
References in text:
"This Act", referred to in this section, is Act June 23, 1947, ch 120, 61 Stat. 136, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which appears as 29 USCS §§ 141-144, 151-158, 159-167, 171-183, 185-187, and 557.
Other provisions:
National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress. Act Aug. 19, 1964, P.L. 88-444, 78 Stat. 462, provided for establishment of a National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress to study, make recommendations, and submit final report by January 1, 1966. The Commission ceased 30 days after making its report.
National Commission for Industrial Peace. Ex. Or. No. 11710 of April 4, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 35565; Ex. Or. No. 11729 of July 12, 1973, 38 F. R. 18863, was revoked by Ex. Or. No. 11823 of Dec. 16, 1974, 39 Fed. Reg. 43529. Such Order established the National Commission for Industrial Peace.
President's Labor-Management Committee. Ex. Or. No. 11809 of Oct. 2, 1974, 39 Fed. Reg. 35565, formerly set out as a note under this section, was revoked by Ex. Or. No. 11948 of Dec. 20, 1976, 41 Fed. Reg. 55705, which appears as 5 App USCS § 14 note. Such Order established the President's Labor-Management Committee.
NOTES:
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
National Labor Relations Board-Administrative regulations, 29 CFR Part 100.
RESEARCH GUIDE
Am Jur:
48 Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations §§ 414, 546, 1291.
Forms:
14 Fed Procedural Forms L Ed, Removal of Actions (1995) § 58:19.
24A Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (1999), Veterans and Veterans' Laws, § 43.
Annotations:
State power to enjoin picketing as affected by federal labor relations acts. 2 L Ed 2d 1630, 15 L Ed 2d 941.
Federal Labor Relations Acts as affecting state court jurisdiction of suits between member of labor union and union. 10 L Ed 2d 1200.
State power to enjoin picketing as affected by Federal Labor Relations Act--Supreme Court Cases. 56 L Ed 2d 813.
State Court jurisdiction as pre-empted by National Labor Relations Act as amended (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.). 75 L Ed 2d 988.
INTERPRETIVE NOTES AND DECISIONS
I. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Constitutionality
3. Purpose, generally
4. --National Labor Relations Board
5. --Equalization of economic power
6. --Promotion and protection of right of organization
7. --Promotion of collective bargaining
8. --Promotion of arbitration of disputes
9. --Avoidance of labor strife
10. --Protection of freedom to strike and picket
11. --Preservation of management prerogatives
12. --Protection of union members
13. Construction
14. Relationship with other laws
II. PREEMPTION
A. In General
15. Generally
16. Scope of federal labor law
17. Scope of NLRB jurisdiction, generally
18. Primary NLRB jurisdiction, generally
19. --Particular circumstances
20. State police power regulations
B. State Legislation
21. Generally
22. Labor relations statutes, generally
23. --Particular legislation
24. Statutes regulating strikes
25. --Strikes against public utilities
26. Statutes regulating jurisdictional strikes
27. Statutes regulating union-security arrangements
28. Statutes requiring licensing of union agents
29. Statutes regulating association with unions of persons convicted of criminal offenses
30. Wage payment statutes
31. Unemployment compensation statutes
32. Statutes barring age discrimination
33. Antitrust laws
34. Miscellaneous
C. State Judicial and Administrative Action
1. In General
35. Generally
36. Jurisdiction
37. Damages
2. Torts
38. Generally
39. Infliction of emotional distress
40. Interference with rights under collective bargaining agreement by union
41. Wrongful death
42. Negligence
43. Interference with contractual rights
44. Defamation
3. Union Conduct
45. Unfair labor practices, generally
46. --Particular activities
47. Violence
48. --Threats
49. Mass picketing
50. Peaceful picketing, generally
51. --Construction sites
52. --Foreign flag vessels
53. --Federal funded projects
54. --Agricultural labor
55. --Miscellaneous
56. Secondary activity
57. --Picketing
58. --Boycotts
59. Activity for union-security arrangement
60. --Closed-shop agreement
61. --Effect of state right to work laws
62. Union interference with employment, generally
63. --Damages
64. --Miscellaneous
65. Union breach of duty of fair representation
66. Wrongful union expulsion or exclusion
67. Wrongful union discipline
4. Miscellaneous
68. Organizational activity
69. Recognitional activity
70. Certification of bargaining representatives
71. Breach of collective bargaining agreement
72. Wrongful discharge
73. Contempt of court
III. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
A. In General
74. Determination of jurisdiction
B. Remedies for Improper State Proceedings
75. Injunction
76. Declaratory judgment
77. Prohibition
I. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
To the extent that any relevant corpus of "national labor policy" exists, it is in the law developed during the administering of the most comprehensive national labor scheme, the Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.), which Act represents the only existing congressional expression as to the premissible bounds of economic combat. Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v Jacksonville Terminal Co. (1969) 394 US 369, 22 L Ed 2d 344, 89 S Ct 1109, 70 BNA LRRM 2961, 59 CCH LC P 13362, reh den (1969) 394 US 1024, 23 L Ed 2d 51, 89 S Ct 1622.
Congress intended that the Labor-Management Relations Act provide a statutory remedy for American concerns and American unions, but not foreign ones. Navios Corp. v National Maritime Union (1966, CA3 Pa) 359 F2d 853, 62 BNA LRRM 2128, 53 CCH LC P 11203, cert den (1966) 385 US 900, 17 L Ed 2d 132, 87 S Ct 205, 63 BNA LRRM 2282, 54 CCH LC P 11497.
Generally, federal law governs parties' rights in actions under LMRA. Employee Painters' Trust v J & B Finishes (1996, CA9 Wash) 77 F3d 1188, 96 CDOS 1354, 96 Daily Journal DAR 2309.
This act represents abandonment of policy of affirmatively encouraging spread of union organization and collective bargaining. Le Baron v Los Angeles Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council (1949, DC Cal) 84 F Supp 629, 24 BNA LRRM 2131, affd (1950, CA9 Cal) 185 F2d 405, 27 BNA LRRM 2184, 19 CCH LC P 66088, vacated (1951) 342 US 802, 96 L Ed 607, 72 S Ct 25, 28 BNA LRRM 2625, 20 CCH LC P 66548.
The passage of this act [§§ 141 et seq. of this title] did not deprive a court of jurisdiction of a case filed under the Labor Relations Act [§§ 151 et seq. of this title] before amendment. Harris v National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 733, 221 P2d 136, 26 BNA LRRM 2493, 18 CCH LC P 65954; Natelson Bros. v New York State Labor Relations Bd. (1949) 194 Misc 635, 88 NYS2d 129, 16 CCH LC P 65070.
Despite fact that federal agency employer is not subject to Labor Management Relations Act, principles of arbitration developed in context of private labor disputes may still be applied to conflicts in which agency is involved. Tennessee Valley Trade & Labor Council v TVA (1998, MD Tenn) 991 F Supp 917.
2. Constitutionality
This act draws its validity from the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution [Const. Art 7 & 8, cl. 3], and therefore affects the substantive law of the states when questions arise concerning the rights and duties of employers and employees who are engaged in interstate commerce. Markham & Callow, Inc. v International Woodworkers of America, etc. (1943) 170 Or 517, 135 P2d 727, 7 CCH LC P 61574.
3. Purpose, generally
Congress, in the NLRA, expressed its judgment in favor of uniform federal regulation of labor relations matters affecting interstate commerce, and, congressional power in this area of interstate commerce being plenary, its judgment must be respected whatever objections there may be to creation of a no-man's land in which state action is barred and federal action is not required. Guss v Utah Labor Relations Bd. (1957) 353 US 1, 1 L Ed 2d 601, 77 S Ct 598, 39 BNA LRRM 2567, 32 CCH LC P 70563.
The purpose of the Act is remedial and not punitive, although the awarding of interest along with back pay is not violative of this principle, where it is awarded merely to make the employee whole. Philip Carey Mfg. Co., Miami Cabinet Div. v NLRB (1964, CA6) 331 F2d 720, 55 BNA LRRM 2821, 49 CCH LC P 18855, cert den (1964) 379 US 888, 13 L Ed 2d 92, 85 S Ct 159, 57 BNA LRRM 2307, 50 CCH LC P 19285.
The Act is remedial rather than punitive and contemplates protection of public rights which it creates and defines. NLRB v Brown Lumber Co. (1964, CA6) 336 F2d 641, 57 BNA LRRM 2151, 50 CCH LC P 19242.
The National Labor Relations Act is remedial, not punitive, and in the case of an unfair labor practice, the purpose of the Act is to restore the situation as nearly as possible to the status quo. Trinity Valley Iron & Steel Co. v NLRB (1969, CA5) 410 F2d 1161, 71 BNA LRRM 2067, 60 CCH LC P 10069.
Congressional purpose of Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 USCS § 141) was to establish policy which would protect rights of employees, employers and general public from dislocations of commerce which might be engendered by commission of unfair labor practices. Hoffman on behalf of NLRB v Beer Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union , etc. (1976, CA9 Cal) 536 F2d 1268, 92 BNA LRRM 3302, 79 CCH LC P 11489, 21 FR Serv 2d 1442.
Announced purposes of Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS § 141) are to prescribe legitimate rights of employees and employers, to prevent interference by either with legitimate rights of other, and to define and proscribe practices on part of labor and management which are inimical to general welfare. National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees v Carey (1977, CA2 NY) 557 F2d 278, 94 BNA LRRM 3106, 81 CCH LC P 13132.
Purpose of LMRA (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) is to promote full flow of commerce and to protect rights of public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters (1976) 17 Cal 3d 893, 132 Cal Rptr 443, 553 P2d 603, 93 BNA LRRM 2161, 80 CCH LC P 11983, revd on other grounds (1978) 436 US 180, 56 L Ed 2d 209, 98 S Ct 1745, 98 BNA LRRM 2282, 83 CCH LC P 10582, on remand (1979) 25 Cal 3d 317, 158 Cal Rptr 370, 599 P2d 676, 102 BNA LRRM 2312, 87 CCH LC P 55208, cert den (1980) 447 US 935, 65 L Ed 2d 1130, 100 S Ct 3038, 111 BNA LRRM 3064, 90 CCH LC P 55283.
4. --National Labor Relations Board
One of the purposes leading to the creation of boards such as the NLRB is to have decisions based on evidential facts under the particular statute made by experienced officials with an adequate appreciation of the complexities of the subject which is entrusted to their administration. International Union of Electrical, etc. v NLRB (1961) 366 US 667, 6 L Ed 2d 592, 81 S Ct 1285, 48 BNA LRRM 2210, 42 CCH LC P 16966.
One of the purposes of the Act was to afford both employer and employee a public tribunal in which a prompt decision would be given to determine with whom the employer should bargain. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v International Union of United Brewery, etc. (1939, CA9 Cal) 106 F2d 871, 5 BNA LRRM 844, 1 CCH LC P 18437.
The labor board was created to avoid, through adjustment, serious labor disputes which, if they reach strike stage, necessarily hurt all parties, public most; it was created so that employees with complaints might have neutral tribunal pass on them, and, if necessary, correct them. NLRB v Barrett Co. (1941, CA7) 120 F2d 583, 8 BNA LRRM 757, 4 CCH LC P 60488.
Purpose of the Act was to establish a single paramount administrative or quasi-judicial authority in connection with development of federal American law regarding collective bargaining. Amazon Cotton Mill Co. v Textile Workers Union (1948, CA4 NC) 167 F2d 183, 21 BNA LRRM 2605, 14 CCH LC P 64443; Textile Workers Union v Arista Mills Co. (1951, CA4 NC) 193 F2d 529, 29 BNA LRRM 2264, 20 CCH LC P 66694.
National Labor Relations Act clearly expresses congressional desire to channel problem-solving through expert administrative body with hope that some grievances may be adjusted without resort to courtroom. Guerra v Manchester Terminal Corp. (1974, CA5 Tex) 498 F2d 641, 8 BNA FEP Cas 433, 8 CCH EPD P 9584, 74 CCH LC P 10248, reh den (1974, CA5 Tex) 503 F2d 567 and (ovrld on other grounds by Bhandari v First Nat. Bank of Commerce (1987, CA5 La) 829 F2d 1343, 45 BNA FEP Cas 126, 44 CCH EPD P 37512, 99 ALR Fed 817).
Manifest object of National Labor Relations Act (29 USCS §§ 151 et seq.) is to furnish single tribunal to hear and determine in first instance labor disputes affecting interstate commerce with adequate and exclusive opportunity for judicial review in designated court. Keller v American Cyanamid Co. (1942) 132 NJ Eq 210, 28 A2d 41, 11 BNA LRRM 567.
5. --Equalization of economic power
A primary purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to redress the perceived imbalance of economic power between labor and management. American Ship Bldg. Co. v NLRB (1965) 380 US 300, 13 L Ed 2d 855, 85 S Ct 955, 58 BNA LRRM 2672, 51 CCH LC P 19594.
The purpose of federal labor legislation is not to artificially create new economic forces, but to reconcile and equalize the power of competing economic forces within society to encourage voluntary agreements governing labor-management relations and prevent industrial strife. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Chemical Div. v NLRB (1970, CA6) 427 F2d 936, 74 BNA LRRM 2425, 63 CCH LC P 10945, affd (1971) 404 US 157, 30 L Ed 2d 341, 92 S Ct 383, 1 EBC 1019, 78 BNA LRRM 2974, 66 CCH LC P 12254.
6. --Promotion and protection of right of organization
The basic thesis for the whole of modern thought in the area of labor relations is that the representative of the employees must not be under the complete control of the employer, so that application of the doctrine of respondeat superior must be carefully delineated and applied with perceptive selectivity. Lummus Co. v NLRB (1964) 119 US App DC 229, 339 F2d 728, 56 BNA LRRM 2425, 49 CCH LC P 19051.
To effectuate its policy of insulating employees' jobs from their organizational rights, the Act aims at every practice, act, source or institution which in fact is used to encourage and discourage union membership by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure, term or condition of employment. Lummus Co. v NLRB (1964) 119 US App DC 229, 339 F2d 728, 56 BNA LRRM 2425, 49 CCH LC P 19051.
The provisions of 29 USCS §§ 151 et seq. are not designed merely to protect a particular representation election or organizational campaign, but are designed to protect employees in the exercise of their organizational rights, and such protection cannot be affected merely because a particular labor organization has chosen an immediate election rerun rather than to await enforcement of NLRB order that an employer cease and desist from certain anti-union misconduct which had occurred prior to a previous election. NLRB v Raytheon Co. (1970) 398 US 25, 26 L Ed 2d 21, 90 S Ct 1547, 74 BNA LRRM 2177, 62 CCH LC P 10883, on remand (1971, CA9) 445 F2d 272, 77 BNA LRRM 2726, 65 CCH LC P 11847.
The purpose of the Act is to encourage the free organization of employees unmolested by interference, restraint, or coercion of the employer. NLRB v American Car & Foundry Co. (1947, CA7) 161 F2d 501, 20 BNA LRRM 2048, 12 CCH LC P 63723.
The purpose of the Act is to leave the employees with a free choice, and not to subject them to the compulsion of their employer, outside labor union, the NLRB, or anybody else as to what is their best interest in joining or forming labor organizations. NLRB v Thompson Products, Inc. (1947, CA6) 162 F2d 287, 20 BNA LRRM 2291, 12 CCH LC P 63806.
The primary purpose of the enactment was to give employees the right to self-organization and the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. NLRB v Thompson Products, Inc. (1947, CA6) 162 F2d 287, 20 BNA LRRM 2291, 12 CCH LC P 63806.
The public policy of the United States expressed through the Act does not limit the choice of employees to any particular representation, nor does it exclude from their choice the representative of any other group of employees. Wilson & Co. v NLRB (1947, CA8) 162 F2d 310, 20 BNA LRRM 2261, 12 CCH LC P 63823.
The act was primarily enacted for the benefit of employees and not for unions, the latter deriving their authority from the employees when selected as their bargaining agent, rather than from the law. Inland Steel Co. v NLRB (1948, CA7) 170 F2d 247, 1 EBC 1008, 22 BNA LRRM 2506, 15 CCH LC P 64737, 12 ALR2d 240, affd (1950) 339 US 382, 94 L Ed 925, 70 S Ct 674, 26 BNA LRRM 2084, 18 CCH LC P 65760, reh den (1950) 339 US 990, 94 L Ed 1391, 70 S Ct 1017.
The avowed purpose of the Act was not to favor or promote unions as such, but was to promote and protect rights of individual employees to join or not to join unions and to be free from coercion and interference either way. NLRB v Augusta Chemical Co. (1951, CA5) 187 F2d 63, 27 BNA LRRM 2350, 19 CCH LC P 66177.
The statute was enacted to protect not the rights of unions to obtain representation contracts but the rights of employees to be represented by a bargaining agent of their own choosing and under all circumstances, these rights must be protected and preserved. NLRB v Red Arrow Freight Lines, Inc. (1952, CA5) 193 F2d 979, 29 BNA LRRM 2390, 21 CCH LC P 66755, petition den (1954, CA5) 213 F2d 260, 34 BNA LRRM 2167, 25 CCH LC P 68394.
Federal labor law was passed to protect the rights of employees, and not the rights of contesting unions. NLRB v Valentine Sugars, Inc. (1954, CA5) 211 F2d 317, 33 BNA LRRM 2679, 25 CCH LC P 68200.
The policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights. NLRB v Spector Freight System, Inc. (1960, CA8) 273 F2d 272, 45 BNA LRRM 2388, 38 CCH LC P 66085, cert den (1960) 362 US 962, 4 L Ed 2d 877, 80 S Ct 879, 46 BNA LRRM 2033; Lummus Co. v NLRB (1964) 119 US App DC 229, 339 F2d 728, 56 BNA LRRM 2425, 49 CCH LC P 19051.
Central purpose of National Labor Relations Act is to protect employees self-organization and process of collective bargaining from disruptive interferences by employers. Mobil Oil Corp. v NLRB (1973, CA7) 482 F2d 842, 83 BNA LRRM 2823, 71 CCH LC P 13841.
In controversies between an employer and a union, the paramount purpose of the Act is to secure to the employees freedom of choice in their representative. NLRB v Shawnee Plastics, Inc. (1974, CA6) 492 F2d 869, 85 BNA LRRM 2308, 73 CCH LC P 14236, cert den (1974) 419 US 838, 42 L Ed 2d 65, 95 S Ct 67, 87 BNA LRRM 2398.
Fundamental policy of National Labor Relations Act (29 USCS §§ 151 et seq.) is self-determination, employees being entitled to be represented by union they themselves select. Metromedia, Inc., KMBC-TV v NLRB (1978, CA8) 586 F2d 1182, 99 BNA LRRM 2743, 84 CCH LC P 10868, later proceeding (1980) 247 NLRB 392, 103 BNA LRRM 1155, 1980 CCH NLRB P 16674.
7. --Promotion of collective bargaining
The fundamental purpose of the National Labor Relations Act [USCS §§ 141 et seq. of this title] is private bargaining under government supervision, without compulsion. H. K. Porter Co. v NLRB (1970) 397 US 99, 25 L Ed 2d 146, 90 S Ct 821, 73 BNA LRRM 2561, 62 CCH LC P 10696.
The purpose of the Act was not to guarantee employees the right to do as they please but to guarantee them the right of collective bargaining for the purpose of preserving industrial peace. NLRB v Illinois Bell Tel. Co. (1951, CA7) 189 F2d 124, 28 BNA LRRM 2079, 19 CCH LC P 66338, cert den (1951) 342 US 885, 96 L Ed 663, 72 S Ct 173, 29 BNA LRRM 2111; NLRB v Ford Radio & Mica Corp. (1958, CA2) 258 F2d 457, 42 BNA LRRM 2620, 35 CCH LC P 71748.
The Act was directed primarily to the prevention of unfair labor practices to open the way for free collective bargaining rather than the regulation of the course of such bargaining and settlement of disputes. Williams v Yellow Cab Co. (1952, CA3 Pa) 200 F2d 302, 31 BNA LRRM 2152, 22 CCH LC P 67280, cert den (1953) 346 US 840, 98 L Ed 361, 74 S Ct 52.
It was the purpose of the Act that execution of collective bargaining agreements between employers and employees would result through the process of good faith bargaining, although the Act does not compel the making of any agreement whatsoever between the employer and the employee. United States Steel Corp. v Nichols (1956, CA6 Ohio) 229 F2d 396, 37 BNA LRRM 2420, 29 CCH LC P 69713, 56 ALR2d 980, cert den (1956) 351 US 950, 100 L Ed 1474, 76 S Ct 846, 38 BNA LRRM 2159.
The purpose of the statute was to compel employees to bargain collectively with their employees to the end that employment contracts binding on both parties should be made. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v W. L. Mead, Inc. (1956, CA1 Mass) 230 F2d 576, 37 BNA LRRM 2679, 29 CCH LC P 69802, cert dismd (1956) 352 US 802, 1 L Ed 2d 37, 77 S Ct 21.
A primary purpose of national labor relations law is to settle labor problems by collective bargaining. Ramsey v NLRB (1964, CA7) 327 F2d 784, 55 BNA LRRM 2441, 49 CCH LC P 18749, cert den (1964) 377 US 1003, 12 L Ed 2d 1052, 84 S Ct 1938, 56 BNA LRRM 2544, 49 CCH LC P 19070, reh den (1964) 379 US 874, 13 L Ed 2d 82, 85 S Ct 26, 50 CCH LC P 19259.
The prime purpose of the Act is to foster industrial peace through collective bargaining. Modern Plastics Corp. v NLRB (1967, CA6) 379 F2d 201, 65 BNA LRRM 2600, 55 CCH LC P 12004.
It is the Labor-Management Relations Act, and not the Constitution, which imposes upon an employer a duty to bargain collectively with an exclusive bargaining agent, and the economic activities of a group of persons who associate together to achieve a common purpose, as opposed to the free speech activities of such group, are not protected by the First Amendment, but are protected as a matter of legislative policy. Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v Hanover Community School Corp. (1972, CA7 Ind) 457 F2d 456, 79 BNA LRRM 2299, 67 CCH LC P 12352.
The Taft-Hartley amendments [§§ 141 et seq. of this title] represent an abandonment of the policy of affirmatively encouraging the spread of union organization and collective bargaining. Le Baron v Los Angeles Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council (1949, DC Cal) 84 F Supp 629, 24 BNA LRRM 2131, affd (1950, CA9 Cal) 185 F2d 405, 27 BNA LRRM 2184, 19 CCH LC P 66088, vacated on other grounds (1951) 342 US 802, 96 L Ed 607, 72 S Ct 25, 28 BNA LRRM 2625, 20 CCH LC P 66548.
8. --Promotion of arbitration of disputes
Congressional policy favors settlement of disputes through machinery of arbitration. Sinclair Refining Co. v Atkinson (1961, CA7 Ind) 290 F2d 312, 48 BNA LRRM 2045, 42 CCH LC P 16905, affd (1962) 370 US 195, 8 L Ed 2d 440, 82 S Ct 1328, 50 BNA LRRM 2420, 45 CCH LC P 17674 (ovrld on other grounds by Boys Markets, Inc. v Retail Clerks Union (1970) 398 US 235, 26 L Ed 2d 199, 90 S Ct 1583, 74 BNA LRRM 2257, 62 CCH LC P 10902) and affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (1962) 370 US 238, 8 L Ed 2d 462, 82 S Ct 1318, 50 BNA LRRM 2433, 45 CCH LC P 17675.
An increasingly recognized and important policy as a vital part of the collective bargaining process is encouragement of arbitration. Ramsey v NLRB (1964, CA7) 327 F2d 784, 55 BNA LRRM 2441, 49 CCH LC P 18749, cert den (1964) 377 US 1003, 12 L Ed 2d 1052, 84 S Ct 1938, 56 BNA LRRM 2544, 49 CCH LC P 19070, reh den (1964) 379 US 874, 13 L Ed 2d 82, 85 S Ct 26, 50 CCH LC P 19259.
It is abuse of discretion for NLRB to refuse to defer to arbitration award in face of policy favoring arbitration, expressed in 29 USCS § 703(d), where findings of arbitrator may arguably be characterized as not inconsistent with NLRB policy. NLRB v Pincus Bros., Inc.-Maxwell (1980, CA3) 620 F2d 367, 104 BNA LRRM 2001, 88 CCH LC P 12013.
Under 29 USCS § 141, dispute over whether new position was supervisory and not within scope of collective bargaining unit is properly subject of arbitration under collective bargaining agreement and jurisdiction in no way acts as bar to arbitration of such labor grievance and arbitrable matters can properly proceed directly to arbitration, even if they raise questions that are within exclusive jurisdiction of NLRB. Times Pub. Co. v Erie Newspaper Guild, etc. (1981, WD Pa) 527 F Supp 1131.
9. --Avoidance of labor strife
This act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) was designed to lessen industrial disputes. Inland Steel Co. v NLRB (1948, CA7) 170 F2d 247, 1 EBC 1008, 22 BNA LRRM 2506, 15 CCH LC P 64737, 12 ALR2d 240, affd (1950) 339 US 382, 94 L Ed 925, 70 S Ct 674, 26 BNA LRRM 2084, 18 CCH LC P 65760, reh den (1950) 339 US 990, 94 L Ed 1391, 70 S Ct 1017.
The fundamental purposes of the Act are to protect commerce from interruptions brought about by strife between employers and workers, and to stabilize labor relations by promoting the principle and practice of collective bargaining. NLRB v Flotill Products, Inc. (1950, CA9) 180 F2d 441, 25 BNA LRRM 2463, 17 CCH LC P 65622.
The purpose of the Act is to promote peaceful settlements of disputes by providing legal remedies for the invasion of employees' rights. NLRB v Sebastopol Apple Growers Union (1959, CA9) 269 F2d 705, 44 BNA LRRM 2755, 38 CCH LC P 65738.
The Act embodies a legislative solution to problems arising from labor disputes which lead to strikes or lockouts and which, because of their serious impact upon national health and safety, may give rise to national emergencies. United States v United Steelworkers of America (1959, CA3 Pa) 271 F2d 676, 45 BNA LRRM 2031, 45 BNA LRRM 2043, 45 BNA LRRM 2044, 38 CCH LC P 65856, affd (1959) 361 US 39, 4 L Ed 2d 12, 80 S Ct 1, 10 Ohio Ops 2d 180, 82 Ohio L Abs 457, 45 BNA LRRM 2066, 38 CCH LC P 65904.
Congressional intent shown in 29 USC § 141(b) is, first, to protect the rights of both employers and employees and, second, to bring an end to industrial strife which affects commerce to such a degree as to menace the general welfare. United States v United Steelworkers of America (1959, CA3 Pa) 271 F2d 676, 45 BNA LRRM 2031, 45 BNA LRRM 2043, 45 BNA LRRM 2044, 38 CCH LC P 65856, affd (1959) 361 US 39, 4 L Ed 2d 12, 80 S Ct 1, 10 Ohio Ops 2d 180, 82 Ohio L Abs 457, 45 BNA LRRM 2066, 38 CCH LC P 65904.
The Act is based upon the principle of promoting industrial peace through collective bargaining and an orderly settlement of disputes. Plasti-Line, Inc. v NLRB (1960, CA6) 278 F2d 482, 46 BNA LRRM 2291, 40 CCH LC P 66555.
One of fundamental policies of the NLRA is to secure industrial peace and prevent strife and disruption by encouraging negotiation and peaceful procedure for the attempted settlement of demands of a party. NLRB v Washington Aluminum Co. (1961, CA4) 291 F2d 869, 48 BNA LRRM 2558, 43 CCH LC P 17039, revd on other grounds (1962) 370 US 9, 8 L Ed 2d 298, 82 S Ct 1099, 50 BNA LRRM 2235, 45 CCH LC P 17637.
The Act is designed to promote industrial peace by encouraging making of voluntary agreements governing relations between unions and employers, and the making of voluntary labor agreements is encouraged by protecting employees' rights to organize for collective bargaining and by imposing on labor and management mutual obligations to bargain collectively. General Electric Co. v Callahan (1961, CA1 Mass) 294 F2d 60, 48 BNA LRRM 2929, 43 CCH LC P 17144, cert dismd (1962) 369 US 832, 7 L Ed 2d 840, 82 S Ct 851, 44 CCH LC P 17553.
The ultimate objective of the Act is industrial peace. NLRB v Holly-General Co., Div. of Siegler Corp. (1962, CA9) 305 F2d 670, 50 BNA LRRM 2676, 45 CCH LC P 17717.
The basic purpose of the Act is to promote industrial peace through collective bargaining and an orderly settlement of disputes. Servette, Inc. v NLRB (1962, CA9) 310 F2d 659, 51 BNA LRRM 2621, 46 CCH LC P 17944, revd on other grounds (1964) 377 US 46, 12 L Ed 2d 121, 84 S Ct 1098, 55 BNA LRRM 2957, 49 CCH LC P 18899.
The purpose of the NLRA is to promote industrial peace, and policy-making decisions of the NLRB favoring employees supporting a rival union over those loyal to the incumbent would seem to have the opposite effect. Armco Steel Corp. v NLRB (1965, CA6) 344 F2d 621, 59 BNA LRRM 2077, 51 CCH LC P 19676.
10. --Protection of freedom to strike and picket
The obvious purpose of the Labor Management Relations Act is not to grant a dispensation for the strike but to outlaw strikes when undertaken to enforce what the act calls unfair practices. International Union, U. A. W. A. v Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd. (1949) 336 US 245, 93 L Ed 651, 69 S Ct 516, 23 BNA LRRM 2361, 16 CCH LC P 64992, reh den (1949) 336 US 970, 93 L Ed 1121, 69 S Ct 935 and (ovrld on other grounds by International Asso. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v Wisconsin Employment Relations Com. (1976) 427 US 132, 49 L Ed 2d 396, 96 S Ct 2548, 92 BNA LRRM 2881, 78 CCH LC P 11476).
Although the Act encourages negotiation and seeks to reduce industrial strife, it does not forbid industrial strife. Textile Workers Union v NLRB (1955) 97 US App DC 35, 227 F2d 409, 36 BNA LRRM 2778, 29 CCH LC P 69515, cert den (1956) 352 US 864, 1 L Ed 2d 73, 77 S Ct 90, 38 BNA LRRM 2757.
Although the Act encourages negotiation and seeks to reduce industrial strife, it does not forbid industrial strife aside from specific conduct, such as jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts. Textile Workers Union v NLRB (1955) 97 US App DC 35, 227 F2d 409, 36 BNA LRRM 2778, 29 CCH LC P 69515, cert den (1956) 352 US 864, 1 L Ed 2d 73, 77 S Ct 90, 38 BNA LRRM 2757.
It is implicit in the Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) that the public interest is served by freedom of labor to use the weapon of picketing. Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v Jacksonville Terminal Co. (1969) 394 US 369, 22 L Ed 2d 344, 89 S Ct 1109, 70 BNA LRRM 2961, 59 CCH LC P 13362, reh den (1969) 394 US 1024, 23 L Ed 2d 51, 89 S Ct 1622.
The Act does not attempt to settle industrial disputes but leaves the parties to the resultant of their opposed economic powers, and therefore, does not require further negotiation after it becomes apparent that a settlement is impossible. NLRB v Cambria Clay Products Co. (1954, CA6) 215 F2d 48, 34 BNA LRRM 2471, 34 BNA LRRM 2810, 26 CCH LC P 68540, reh den (1955, CA6) 229 F2d 433, 36 BNA LRRM 2714, 28 CCH LC P 69505.
11. --Preservation of management prerogatives
Congress intended by the enactment of this act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) that employers be free in the future to discharge supervisors for joining a union and to interfere with their union activities. NLRB v Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co. (1948, CA6) 169 F2d 571, 22 BNA LRRM 2414, 15 CCH LC P 64703, cert den (1949) 335 US 908, 93 L Ed 441, 69 S Ct 411, 23 BNA LRRM 2228.
One of the objectives of the Act is protection of employees in freely negotiating concerning unsatisfactory plant conditions and other conditions of employment without fear of reprisal, but the purpose of the Act was not to guarantee to employees the right to do as they pleased under any given set of circumstances and in total disregard of the obligations of their employment. NLRB v Washington Aluminum Co. (1961, CA4) 291 F2d 869, 48 BNA LRRM 2558, 43 CCH LC P 17039, revd on other grounds (1962) 370 US 9, 8 L Ed 2d 298, 82 S Ct 1099, 50 BNA LRRM 2235, 45 CCH LC P 17637.
The objectives of national labor policy require the rightful prerogative of owners independently to rearrange their businesses and even eliminate themselves as employers be balanced by some protection to the employees from a sudden change in the employment relationship. Overnite Transp. Co. v NLRB (1967, CA4) 372 F2d 765, 64 BNA LRRM 2359, 54 CCH LC P 11725, cert den (1967) 389 US 838, 19 L Ed 2d 101, 88 S Ct 59, 66 BNA LRRM 2307, 56 CCH LC P 12214.
12. --Protection of union members
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 USCS §§ 141-197), does not undertake to protect union members in their rights as members from arbitrary conduct by unions and union officers. International Asso. of Machinists v Gonzales (1958) 356 US 617, 2 L Ed 2d 1018, 78 S Ct 923, 42 BNA LRRM 2135, 34 CCH LC P 71547, reh den (1958) 357 US 944, 2 L Ed 2d 1559, 78 S Ct 1379.
The congressional policy of protecting the union member is particularly apt where membership is the result not of the individual employee's voluntary choice, but of the insertion of a union security provision in the contract under which a substantial minority of employees have been forced into membership, which protection prevents a nonvoluntary union member from being fined by the union for crossing the picket line or otherwise indulging in a protected activity. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v NLRB (1966, CA7) 358 F2d 656, 61 BNA LRRM 2498, 53 CCH LC P 11104, revd on other grounds (1967) 388 US 175, 18 L Ed 2d 1123, 87 S Ct 2001, 65 BNA LRRM 2449, 55 CCH LC P 11972, reh den (1967) 389 US 892, 19 L Ed 2d 202, 88 S Ct 13.
13. Construction
Although what Congress did in enacting the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 does not establish what it meant when it enacted the Taft-Hartley amendment to the National Labor Relations Act in 1947, the 1959 act, being another major step in an evolving pattern of regulation of union conduct, is a relevant consideration in determining the meaning of provisions of the 1947 legislation, and courts may properly take into account the 1959 act when asked to extend the reach of the 1947 act's vague language to limits which, read literally, the words might permit. NLRB v Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, etc. (1960) 362 US 274, 4 L Ed 2d 710, 80 S Ct 706, 45 BNA LRRM 2975, 39 CCH LC P 66351; NLRB v Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. (1967) 388 US 175, 18 L Ed 2d 1123, 87 S Ct 2001, 65 BNA LRRM 2449, 55 CCH LC P 11972, reh den (1967) 389 US 892, 19 L Ed 2d 202, 88 S Ct 13.
The amended National Labor Relations Act does not dichotomize "public" as opposed to "private" interests, and the two interblend in the intricate statutory scheme. International Union, etc. v Scofield (1965) 382 US 205, 15 L Ed 2d 272, 86 S Ct 373, 60 BNA LRRM 2479, 52 CCH LC P 16771.
This act [§§ 141 et seq. of this title] is prospective and not retroactive. NLRB v Mylan-Sparta Co. (1948, CA6) 166 F2d 485, 21 BNA LRRM 2368, 14 CCH LC P 64306; NLRB v National Plastic Products Co. (1949, CA4) 175 F2d 755, 24 BNA LRRM 2155, 24 BNA LRRM 2333, 16 CCH LC P 65195, 16 CCH LC P 65247.
The Act created rights against employers which did not exist before, although such rights were not private rights vested in employees but were public rights protected by the power placed by the Act in the NLRB. NLRB v Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co. (1948, CA6) 169 F2d 571, 22 BNA LRRM 2414, 15 CCH LC P 64703, cert den (1949) 335 US 908, 93 L Ed 441, 69 S Ct 411, 23 BNA LRRM 2228; Arnolt Corp. v Stansen Corp. (1951, CA7 Ill) 189 F2d 5.
Where pre-hearing election was held prior to time this act amended by 29 USCS § 141, provisions of former and not latter were applicable. NLRB v National Plastic Products Co. (1949, CA4) 175 F2d 755, 24 BNA LRRM 2155, 24 BNA LRRM 2333, 16 CCH LC P 65195, 16 CCH LC P 65247.
The Act did not confer private rights, but granted only rights in the interest of the public to be protected by a procedure looking solely to public ends. Haleston Drug Stores, Inc. v NLRB (1951, CA9) 187 F2d 418, 27 BNA LRRM 2401, 19 CCH LC P 66187, cert den (1951) 342 US 815, 96 L Ed 616, 72 S Ct 29, 28 BNA LRRM 2625.
The Act must be construed broadly and given effect to cope with and prevent the mischiefs it was designed to meet and do away with, so that shadow boxing with words, including dialectical hair splitting, has no proper place in construing and applying the Act. NLRB v Metallic Bldg. Co. (1953, CA5) 204 F2d 826, 32 BNA LRRM 2162, 23 CCH LC P 67636, cert den (1954) 347 US 911, 98 L Ed 1068, 74 S Ct 473, 33 BNA LRRM 2456.
The Act is a type of legislation which is remedial in character and is to be broadly and liberally construed to accomplish its intended purpose. Department & Specialty Store Employees' Union v Brown (1960, CA9 Cal) 284 F2d 619, 47 BNA LRRM 2145, 41 CCH LC P 16639, cert den (1961) 366 US 934, 6 L Ed 2d 846, 81 S Ct 1659, 48 BNA LRRM 2243.
Violations of the NLRA give rise to public rather than private rights, thereby making it unnecessary for the NLRB to determine the effect of a clear and uncoerced agreement not to file an unfair labor practice charge. Henry I. Siegel Co. v NLRB (1965, CA2) 340 F2d 309, 58 BNA LRRM 2182, 51 CCH LC P 19440.
Decisions of federal courts concerning the construction of this act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) are binding upon state courts in cases involving interstate commerce. Stone Logging & Contracting Co. v International Woodworkers of America (1943) 171 Or 13, 135 P2d 759, 7 CCH LC P 61581.
14. Relationship with other laws
This act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) is federal legislation, administered by a national agency, intended to solve a national problem on a national scale; hence, its application is not dependent on the state law in determination of employer-employee relationship. NLRB v Hearst Publications, Inc. (1944) 322 US 111, 88 L Ed 1170, 64 S Ct 851, 14 BNA LRRM 614, 8 CCH LC P 51179, reh den (1944) 322 US 769, 88 L Ed 1595, 64 S Ct 1148.
For a state to impinge on the area of labor combat designed by the NLRA to be free is quite as much an obstruction of federal policy as if the state were to declare picketing free for purposes or by methods which the Federal Act prohibits. Garner v Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union (1953) 346 US 485, 98 L Ed 228, 74 S Ct 161, 33 BNA LRRM 2218, 24 CCH LC P 68020; Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union v Morton (1964) 377 US 252, 12 L Ed 2d 280, 84 S Ct 1253, 56 BNA LRRM 2225, 49 CCH LC P 19000; NLRB v Nash-Finch Co. (1971) 404 US 138, 30 L Ed 2d 328, 92 S Ct 373, 78 BNA LRRM 2967, 66 CCH LC P 12253.
Mere existence of remedies under National Labor Relations Act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) does not preclude action under 42 USCS § 1985 for conspiracy to refuse to hire farm workers. Irizarry v Quiros (1983, CA1 Puerto Rico) 722 F2d 869, 26 BNA WH Cas 880, 99 CCH LC P 34470.
State supreme court is not concerned with the wisdom of this act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.). International Ass'n of Machinists v State (1943) 153 Fla 672, 15 So 2d 485, 13 BNA LRRM 652, 7 CCH LC P 61867.
Taft-Hartley Act (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq.) providing for institution of injunction proceedings by general counsel of National Labor Relations Board in cases involving unfair labor practice does not deprive state court of jurisdiction in injunction proceeding where it had jurisdiction prior to passage of federal act. Mayer Bros. Poultry Farms v Meltzer (1948) 274 App Div 169, 80 NYS2d 874, 22 BNA LRRM 2315, 15 CCH LC P 64615, app den (1948) 274 App Div 877, 83 NYS2d 228.
II. PREEMPTION
A. In General
15. Generally
Federal labor relations acts have not merely laid down a substantive rule of law, but have expressed congressional intention that centralized administration of specially designed procedures is necessary to obtain uniform application of substantive rules and to avoid diversities and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local procedures and attitudes toward labor controversies. Garner v Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union (1953) 346 US 485, 98 L Ed 228, 74 S Ct 161, 33 BNA LRRM 2218, 24 CCH LC P 68020; Amalgamated Asso. of Street, etc. v Lockridge (1971) 403 US 274, 29 L Ed 2d 473, 91 S Ct 1909, 77 BNA LRRM 2501, 65 CCH LC P 11805, reh den (1971) 404 US 874, 30 L Ed 2d 120, 92 S Ct 24 and on remand (1971) 94 Idaho 475, 491 P2d 739, 79 BNA LRRM 2410.
The area left by the NLRA for permissible state action must be spelled out by the Supreme Court from conflicting indications of congressional will. Garner v Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union (1953) 346 US 485, 98 L Ed 228, 74 S Ct 161, 33 BNA LRRM 2218, 24 CCH LC P 68020.
A state may not prohibit the exercise of rights which Federal Labor Relations Acts protect. Weber v Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1955) 348 US 468, 99 L Ed 546, 75 S Ct 480, 35 BNA LRRM 2637, 27 CCH LC P 69064; United Mine Workers v Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. (1956) 351 US 62, 100 L Ed 941, 76 S